On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:22:22 AM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 1/31/2016 5:34 PM, Fillmore wrote: > > On 01/30/2016 05:26 AM, wxjmfauth wrote: > > > >>> Python 2 vs python 3 is anything but "solved". > >> Python 3.5.1 is still suffering from the same buggy > >> behaviour as in Python 3.0 . > > > > Can you elaborate? > > Please do not propagate jmf's repeated trolls to python-list
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:57:28 PM UTC+5:30, wxjmf wrote: > Python 3.5.1 is still suffering from the same buggy > behaviour as in Python 3.0 . is banned whereas this is not: On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:01:09 AM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote: > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:21:21 AM UTC-6, Ulli Horlacher wrote: > > I nearly gave up with Python at the very beginning before > > I realised that OO-programming is optional in Python! :-) > > Most tutorials I found so far makes OO mandatory. > > Just more evidence that old dogs are incapable of learning > new tricks. Either learn how to wield Neuroplasticity to > your advantage, or go curl up into a ball and wait for death > to come. People who are unwilling to "expanding their > intellectual horizons" make me sick!!! Not to mention endless screeds like this one: On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:00:12 AM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote: > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:49:24 PM UTC-6, sohca...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I'm convinced that anyone who actually prefers Perl's > > syntax over Python is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. > > > > [...] > > > > Readability counts. I'd say readability is one of the > > most important features of a language, as you will read > > your code far more than you write it. Perl is not > > readable. I don't care how powerful your language is if > > you can't read it. > > EXACTLY! > > Which is the same reason why natural language is bound by > many structural rules. For instance: we utilize "syntactical > structures" like sentences and paragraphs to create > "comprehensible groupings", and we *NEVER* want to > arbitrarily, or randomly, use more than one space between > words, or more than one line between paragraphs. > > STRUCTURE IS IMPORTANT! > > And the only thing more important than a "self-imposed > structure" is a steadfast adherence to the "collective style > guides" of written communication. When we *ALL* utilize a > familiar structure, we will *ALL* spend less time > *CONSCIOUSLY INTERPRETING* superficial structural details, > and more time *ABSORBING* the actual meaning of the content. > > ABSORPTION IS THE GOAL, NOT ABERRATION! > > The goal of written communication is no different than any > other technology. We should strive to abstract away as much > as possible to the sub-conscience processes of our mind as > we can, so that we can target our mental focus purely on the > comprehension of content, *NOT* comprehension of structure! > When faced with an unfamiliar "syntactical structure", our > high level focus becomes "mired in the minutiae of the > superficial". > > EVEN WHEN NECESSARY, THE SUPERFICIAL IS NOT IMPORTANT! > > The goal of communication should never be (either > intentional or not) to distract or impress our readers with > our capacity to create "self-aggrandizing ornateness of > structure", which will undoubtedly obfuscate the intended > message, no, but to *STRICTLY* follow the collective > standards and practices of "acceptable syntactical > structuring" that will *facilitate* a smooth transition > between: ideas that are codified into symbolic languages, > and the translation of those linguistic symbols into concepts > in the mind of the reader. > > ABSTRACTIONS ARE VITAL TO OUR COMPREHENSION OF COMPLEX > COMMUNICATION MEDIUMS! > > For communication to function (at it's most basic level) > these abstractions must exist simultaneously in our codified > symbolic languages *AND* in our mental processes that > interpret them. But whilst our mental abstractions are > mostly unconscious, they can become disturbed when > dissonance is injected into symbolic languages in the form > of "poor syntactical structure". Break either link in the > chain, and a "smooth transition of ideas" becomes untenable. Can someone explain the policy? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
